Support Amnesty International over Catholic Church
Cath Elliot wrote an important article for CIF yesterday, highlighting the Catholic Church’s condemnation of Amnesty International. She explains:
After over two years of discussion and debate, Amnesty International finally announced last week that it will be campaigning for women to have access to abortion in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother’s life or health. This is a huge step forward for women’s rights worldwide, especially in areas of conflict where rape is employed as a weapon of war or as a tool for ethnic cleansing.
Unsurprisingly, this decision has led to an outpouring of condemnation from religious bodies, most notably from the Roman Catholic church.
The decision by the Catholic Church to condemn AI is a serious one, and almost a call for a boycott.
The organisation’s position is that, “it would work to “support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure that women have access to heathcare when complications arise from abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion . . . when their health or human rights are in danger.”
That, is a principled position and one of letting women regulate their own lives.
Cath points out:
What the bishop and his church fail to understand is that forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will is a continuation of the violence against her.
…
For how much longer is the Catholic church going to regard the “human life in a woman’s womb” as being of more importance than the human life that possesses a womb?
Well said. But such attacks on abortion rights by the Catholic Church are increasing. Janine at Stroppyblog points out that the RMT union is submitting two resolutions to the Scottish TUC Women’s Conference deploring the views of Cardinal Keith O’Brien who spoke out against abortions.
What the bishop and his church fail to understand is that forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will is a continuation of the violence against her.
Similarly, forcing a policeman to treat a suspect humanely against their will is a continuation of the violence against society.
Why do so many people think if they rephrase their underlying metaphysical assumptions in a clever enough way, they will somehow become rationally persuasive to people with different beliefs?
Some people think that people can, by their actions, lose the right to be treated as human beings. As such, they can be restrained, trained, pampered or even put down based on whatever the current best thinking is from experts in criminology (or counterinsurgency).
A person with those beliefs is hardly likely to join Amnesty. You are not going to find some clever form of words that will persuade such a person to join: at best you can avoid the issue and collaborate on unrelated causes.
The Catholic Church and the Catholic press’s attacks on AI over this issue are deeply dishonest. Whilst the TWO YEAR consultation was going on, they were going on about AI campaigning for a “right to abortion” which was, at best, an extreme misunderstanding of the questions being asked.
It will come as little surprise to AI members that the Catholic Church is opposed even to the limited policy that has been adopted. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the policy adopted was to start research into the area at some point and will form a pretty damn small part of AI’s wide ranging work. It was also, as ever, concentrate on serious violation of human rights - e.g. the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur, where the Catholic-friendly option of adoption really isn’t a realistic one.
Quote: For how much longer is the Catholic church going to regard the “human life in a woman’s womb” as being of more importance than the human life that possesses a womb?
The Catholic Church doesn’t value one life over the other, the change in AI policy now shows THEY do. Whilst many will view this change in policy by AI as a “Huge step forward in the rights of women worldwide” it is a massive step backwards in the rights of unborn children.
Why do people continually put the rights of the born over the rights of the unborn? Not being born does not and should not deny someone their rights to life, and their right to respect as a human being. Human rights FOR ALL, not a selective few.
“Human rights for all” does rather beg the question of what counts as “human”, does it not? You do see that, yes? Ditto definitions of “life” and “children”. I think one major question you should ask yourself is why your subjective belief of what counts as human life should take precedence over anyone else’s.
“I think one major question you should ask yourself is why your subjective belief of what counts as human life should take precedence over anyone else’s.”
Quite. Might be why an oganisation dedicated to the support of human rights shouldn’t take a stance on the issue as well.
Quite. Might be why an oganisation dedicated to the support of human rights shouldn’t take a stance on the issue as well.
Because provision of abortion facilities is a human rights issue.
“For how much longer is the Catholic church going to regard the “human life in a woman’s womb” as being of more importance than the human life that possesses a womb?”
I would rather say that they are of equal value. Which is why abortion - the killing of one of those lives - can only be justified IMO when the mother’s life is in obvious danger should the pregnancy continue.
Said it before, will say it again; I’m resolutely pro choice (don’t call the other side pro life because that’s an absurd term, they’re anti-choice) on this issue.
It’s a womens right to choose simple and plain and no bloody religioun has the right to decide what she does with her body.
Hi Sunny, thanks for this.
Tim - “Might be why an oganisation dedicated to the support of human rights shouldn’t take a stance on the issue as well”
I really don’t understand this argument, and it’s been raised on the blog following my piece as well. As Sunny has pointed out, access to abortion is a human rights issue, so unless human rights means human rights for everyone except women, why on earth shouldn’t Amnesty take a position on this?
Leon - it is everybody’s right to do what they want, within reason. Reason, for example, could be breaking the law. Reason, for example, could be if it leads to the loss of the life of another.
When a woman aborts, it may well be ‘her’ body but it is *also* the life of another she affects with her choice. It is no longer just her body. There is another human being growing inside, and the rights of that human are no less important than any other.
ChrisC - Even if the mothers life is in danger, she/we/society should not and in my eyes cannot justify the death of another. Killing one human to save the life of another is not justifiable.
Amnesty is campaigning for something that its membership (the majority of) agree with. It is not a state. Jay3gsm would have his view taken on by the state and imposed on people with different beliefs to his own. Amnesty’s stance that women should be able to make their own choice is the very opposite of that.
This is all quite apart from the practical fact that making abortion illegal does not stop it happening - it merely makes it far more dangerous. But that is not something usually acknowledged by those who would have their personal views imposed on the bodies and lives of women by the state.
Jay3gsm, you seem to be wilfully missing a major point - you think it the life of a human being, others don’t. You think a human life is created at the moment of conception (at least, I assume that’s what you mean, and not “contraception”, which is what you actually said), others disagree. I ask again, why should your view take precedence over that of the actual person in question?
Oops, big typo there, I did mean conception.
It’s not just ‘my’ opinion. It is a medical fact that life begins at conception. As that person is alive, then they deserve the same rights as any human being. Not yet being born should not be a bar to having rights of that individual recognised. Why are the rights of the unborn any less important to people?
I don’t see it as a case of forcing my view, I see it as trying to open the eyes to the slaughter of innocent life. And I don’t apologise for the dramatic sense of the words, it literally is mass slaughter of innocent life.
Why do people find that so acceptable?
It is medical fact? Provide some evidence please.
Conception is a bio chemical process, it is a collection of cells not a ‘life’, a ‘child’ and certainly not a ‘human’.
“It’s a womens right to choose simple and plain and no bloody religioun has the right to decide what she does with her body.”
I find the two extremes equally distasteful: the rigid version of the Catholic Church (although I believe they are open to cases where women’s health is an issue), and others who say that women have the right to “choose simple and plain”. It is anything but simple or plain.
“you think it the life of a human being, others don’t. You think a human life is created at the moment of conception, others disagree. I ask again, why should your view take precedence over that of the actual person in question?”
Does it really matter if people say it is not a human life? Would things be any different if people admitted otherwise? I don’t think so. It is just a matter of people not feeling remorse, because honestly the only people with credibility to answer these questions belong to the scientific community, not me or the actual person in question.
With Sunny and Leon on this.
Catholic doctrine is a bitter bitter farce on many issues. Quite how you get the ediface of the Catholic Church from Jesus’s Ministry is quite quite bizarre.
I’ll side with AI over the Catholic Church any day of the week.
The Catholic opposition to contraception is evil. There is no other word for it. The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception
Jay3gsm - “It is a medical fact that life begins at conception. As that person is alive, then they deserve the same rights as any human being”
It is not a person, it is a collection of cells with the potential for life. If life began at conception we would be in mourning every time a woman had a late period for god’s sake.
“it literally is mass slaughter of innocent life”
And you literally are taking things too far.
The Catholic opposition to contraception is evil. There is no other word for it. The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception
Exactly.
With Sunny and Leon on this.
Catholic doctrine is a bitter bitter farce on many issues. Quite how you get the ediface of the Catholic Church from Jesus’s Ministry is quite quite bizarre.
I’ll side with AI over the Catholic Church any day of the week.
The Catholic opposition to contraception is evil. There is no other word for it. The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception IS THE CAUSE OF MORE ABORTIONS then if they relaxed their idiotic stance.
As to when life begins….at conception we are talking potential life. Many conceived foetus’s (or more accurately conjugated cell clusters) are aborted without the mothger knowing due to a whole host of medical reasons, for example, imperfect implantation of the womb wall etc etc.
So no, abortion is not murder. It is certainly the end of potential life but that happens naturally anyway quite often so I don’t really see what the fuss is about.
Now, once the cells develop into a foetus, now then the situation is quite different and am no fan of any abortion over, I think, 12 weeks.
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church - bunch of men - imposing its will on women - often in patriachal societies where womens education and options can be limited. That I find utterly disgusting.
So Jay3gsm, get your religious imperialistic tanks off the lawn of womens reproductive rights!
Sorry. Having browser problems!
TCH
Leon:
Medical Textbooks and Scientific Reference Works
Dr. Bradley M. Patten’s textbook, Human Embryology, states, ” It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatazoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that…marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” - Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968) 43
Dr. Louis Fridhandler in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, refers to fertilization as “that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new individual.” - L. Fridhandler, Gametogenesis to Implantation, ” Biology of Gestation, Vol. 1 ed. N.S. Assau (New York: Academic Press, 1968) 76
Time and Rand McNally’s Atlas of the Body states, “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, whch is the start of a new individual.” - Time Magazine and Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand-McNally, 1980) 139, 144
Encyclopedia Britannica, says, “A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” - “Pregnancy,” The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. Macropedia, Vol. 14 (Chicago: Encyclo. Brit., 1974) 968
Prominent Scientists and Physicians:
The late Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, and discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome said, “After fertilization has taken place and a new human being has come into being. It’s no longer a matter of taste or opinion, and not a meta-physical condition, it is plain experimental evidence.” - Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” - Ibid
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo clinic: “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” - Ibid
Ashley Montague, Geneticist and Professor at Harvard and Rutgers, who is unsympathetic to the pro-life cause, said clear, “The basic fact is simple” Life begins not at birth, but conception.” - Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977) vi
Dr. Landrum Shettles served twenty-seven years as attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. He was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility and is internationally famous for discovering male-and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of pre-born children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, “I oppose abortion…because I accept what is biologically manifest–that human life commences at the time of conception–and…because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic and humanitarian.” - L. Shettles and D. Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. 1983) 113
The Catholic opposition to contraception is evil. There is no other word for it.
First, the Catholic Church is only opposed to artificial contraception. Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil
It’s quite easy to go from Jesus to the Catholic Church, after all it is the Church He started.
Jay - copying and pasting is easy, anyone can do it.
My question is - what gives you or the Catholic Church the right to interfere in the decision another woman makes?
Let me take another example… do you contribute to helping children who have Down’s syndrome? If you’re so obsessed about other people’s lives, then surely the Catholic Church and people like yourself should be doing more to help living kids who live in extreme poverty? Or do your concerns stop once the person is born?
Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil
Why?
Jay3gsm - I’m afraid that all you have done is posted a number of articles by people who agree with you. You must be aware that a large number of people (including scientists, doctors and theologians) disagree? There is clearly no consensus on this, or anything close to one.
And alas you have ignored the more practical point that making abortion illegal does not make it stop, or even close.
So I copied the information from an email I sent out a while ago? Whether I copied and pasted or wrote that all manually, it supports my argument of life beginning at conception. What difference does it make?
My personal giving to others is of no concern to this thread, but as you asked, I often do works of charity, for various concerns, all through the Church. Be that for children, adults, male, female, it makes no difference. I don’t see anything wrong in being concerned with others, and offering support where needed. I don’t discriminate for any reason.
You asked for support of my argument, I provided it. What more should I have done?
Jay
“First, the Catholic Church is only opposed to artificial contraception. Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil”
- there are no natural methods of contraception. There is a name for people who attempt natural methods. It is usually ‘Dad’ or ‘Mum’. Joking aside, how can artificial contraception be ‘evil’?
“It’s quite easy to go from Jesus to the Catholic Church, after all it is the Church He started”
Er…no. Its the Chruch that grew from Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and its structure and Doctrines are as much a product of the politics therein then the contents of the New Testament - or put another way - what the early catholic church decided Jesus said/meant.
And on top of that, I am blocked from replying to the posts here. Maybe someone took issue with what I said.
Jay,
How about addressing my point, that the CC blind adherence to its evil opposition to artificial contraception actually causes abortions rather then prevents them?
Did I miss something? Where did he go?
The real question is whether Amnesty International should be campaigning for this sort of thing at all. Amnesty originally had one laudable aim; the fair trial and fair treatment of prisoners of conscience. There are still enough of those around for Amnesty to concentrate on. I am ‘pro-choice’, but I would prefer to hear this argument from abortion groups, not Amnesty. It has now become an organisation, while still achieving good thing, which lobbies for things like universal healthcare and education- this should not be its role; others can do that.
As for the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception, I strongly disagree with it. I think contraception is a great idea, and should be promoted. However, I would have trouble classing the papist stance as evil- they believe that they are protecting the lives of children (hardly evil, rather misguided and damaging).
It’s a womens right to choose simple and plain and no bloody religion has the right to decide what she does with her body.
Amen!
(if you’ll pardon the pun)
This point cannot be restated firmly enough. Its the Women’s right to choose what she does with her body. Any man trying to tell her what to do should be ashamed of himself- he’s not a man, he’s just a mysoginistic bully.
Rumbold.
They deliberatley and knowingly choose to push a doctrine that makes peoples lives much much worse.
Thats evil.
I have alot of experience with development and the best thing we could do with catholic, and I use the term loosely, ‘development agencies’ and cahrities, is round them up and leave them in Greenland. Just anywhere AWAY from the developing world. I bear them no illwill personally, its the net impact of their work I take issue with.
I mean, given the prevalance of HIV in Africa, the CC stance on condoms is unpardonable.
Shoudl have read ‘charities’
Damn these thick fingers!
Sorry, the spam system is taking in his messages for some reason and blocking them as spam. I don’t know why that is, I’m trying to clear them through.
“This point cannot be restated firmly enough. Its the Women’s right to choose what she does with her body. Any man trying to tell her what to do should be ashamed of himself- he’s not a man, he’s just a mysoginistic bully.”
No.
It’s not just her body, is it?
Otherwise we would not (perhaps you don’t) put a time limit on abortion.
Now, legal abortion is probably the lesser of two evils. But let’s not paper over reality by using phrases like “what she does with her body” as if it was equivalent to having a brazilian. It is not.
It is killing. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still killing.
Some of my messages got blocked, I thought I’d been censured
I don’t want to get into a discussion here on this thread about the teachings of the Catholic Church. I would be happy to take it up via email though. (Only because I’m assuming this isn’t the right place for such a discussion)
The point I would make here is simply that all life is valuable. Removing a baby for any reason is wrong. And never can a wrongful act achieve something good.
When a woman is pregnant, it is no longer just her body. She has to consider the child, too, to do otherwise is at best sheer selfishness.
NFP is the Catholic teaching on contraception, check it out.
And Peter was authorised by Christ to build His Church.
When a woman is pregnant, it is no longer just her body.
No it’s still her body. What gives others jurisdiction over her body?
ChrisC - “It is killing. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still killing.”
You can’t kill something that isn’t alive.
PS - of course the Catholic position on contraception is certainly peverse and has, if not evil intentions, certainly evil consequences.
“You can’t kill something that isn’t alive.”
At what stage of pregnancy does life begin?
Rumbold - “It has now become an organisation, while still achieving good thing, which lobbies for things like universal healthcare and education” - Amnesty International does not lobby or campaign for things like universal healthcare and education, so I don’t where you got that from. It’s general basis for campaigning are international human rights legal instruments - such as the UNHCR, CEDAW and many others.
Jay3gsm, actually the point was not that you cannot support your position - clearly many people think the same way as you - but that you cannot PROVE it. Why then should your views have more strength than anyone else’s? You have consistently failed to address that point, which makes me think that your argument is simply that you think it is wrong therefore everyone else should conform to that.
And you still haven’t been able to touch on the point that making abortion illegal doesn’t stop them happening.
Jay - “When a woman is pregnant, it is no longer just her body”
Whose is it then? It’s certainly not the Catholic Church’s.
You have a right to your own beliefs, so if you don’t believe it’s right for you to ever have an abortion, fine, don’t have one. But don’t tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
ChrisC - “At what stage of pregnancy does life begin?”
When the foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb. Some would argue at no stage of the pregnancy but the end, when the baby draws its first breath.
The Common Humanist:
I take your point. However, they believe that they are saving millions of childrens’ lives.
Katherine:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/poverty-index-eng
Laudable aims, but the campaigning should be left up to other groups.
On a side note, I went to the Aga Khan’s exhibition of Islamic art at the Ismaili Centre in South Kensington today- well worth going to, especially as it is quite small and you can take it in in an hour or so.
I’m afraid Rumbold that you are misinterpreting that part of the Amnesty web page. That is a repetition of the right expressed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Articles 11 and 13. Reports or statements made by Amnesty on these subject have included, for example, opposition to forced evictions in Angola.
Amnesty is not campaigning for universal healthcare and education - you are just wrong about that. If you really want to know what they are campaigning on in the field of the ICESCR, then look out for the Human Dignity campaign next year.
“My question is - what gives you or the Catholic Church the right to interfere in the decision another woman makes?”
Fortunately, long are the days when the Catholic Church actually had a final say on private matters. As a Catholic, I find their opposition to condoms totally unacceptable and I cannot understand their position under any light. However, their opposition to abortion is understandable, even if I find it unfair to victims of rape and incest.
“Let me take another example… do you contribute to helping children who have Down’s syndrome? If you’re so obsessed about other people’s lives, then surely the Catholic Church and people like yourself should be doing more to help living kids who live in extreme poverty? Or do your concerns stop once the person is born?”
I know the topic here is anti-catholic bashing, but I think the Catholic church does have considerable work in areas with extreme poverty. I am with AI on this one, because I believe a women that is raped, or was a victim of incest, does not need to carry the burden.
But I am wary of women who commit abortions just plain and simple… even if you don’t have any moral quarrels with it, isn’t abortion a health hazard for women?
“When the foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb. Some would argue at no stage of the pregnancy but the end, when the baby draws its first breath.”
Well - I don’t know who these “some” might be, but it is rather difficult to argue that aborting at the last minute is anything other than killing.
The line is of course arbitrary. (Though wherever it is, medical advances are constantly bringing it forward.) And if the very last minute is killing then unfortunately, in logic, so is the very first.
I support legal abortion as the lesser of two evils.
But killing is what it is.
I hate to break it to you Ravi, but it is far more dangerous to the woman concerned to continue with a pregnancy than to terminate it.
I wouldn’t say the line is arbitrary, Chris C, but it is certainly fuzzy. As it happens, the point at which a foetus can realistically survive outside the womb is around the same time as the brain and nervous system have pretty much developed - coincidence?
As for “killing”, well I’d say that is another question of definition isn’t it?
Exactly. If people are talking about abortion in the cases of danger to the mother’s life, or extreme cases such as the child being a result of rape, incest etc, then that’s a different matter.
However, problems arise when you have diametrically opposing viewpoints where one party insists on “no abortion or even contraception, regardless of the circumstances”, and the other party insists that the woman has “the right to terminate the life of her child regardless of her reasons for doing so”. Both are misguided and can have very negative repercussions, and the latter really does start treading on very dangerous ground from a moral standpoint when we’re talking about terminations for reasons of “convenience” or (to give an Indian example) because the child is the “wrong” gender.
It’s not a black-and-white issue, as Ravi accurately said, despite the pro-choice-no-matter-what and anti-choice-no-matter-what extremists at both ends of the argument.
I think that two situations arise here, depending on the specific person:
1. They may not feel any remorse because they genuinely believe that the zygote/foetus/developing baby isn’t actually “alive” in the true sense at the time that they decide to have the termination. This belief may be a result of either misinformation or their own interpretation of the scientific facts at hand.
or:
2. They don’t want to carry the baby to full term for various reasons, and if they manage to convince themselves and/or others that there’s nothing immoral about terminating the pregnancy at that stage because “it’s not actually alive” or “they have the right to abort the child regardless of their actual reasons for doing so” then in their own minds this exonerates them from having to feel any remorse for their actions.
Absolutely correct. The problem here is that, as with so many cases where dogmatic attitudes are held, people will stubbornly stick to the mindset which they perceive to be in their own best interests and which (again in their view) supports their argument, and will discount any scientific evidence contradicting their standpoint. This applies regardless of which side of the fence the person resides on this issue. Case in point: Examples on this very thread.
“When the foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb. Some would argue at no stage of the pregnancy but the end, when the baby draws its first breath.”
No baby and very few children are capable of independent life outside the womb. If you think about it, there isn’t much difference in the role of a mother regardless of whether the baby is inside or outside her womb.
I hate to break it to you Ravi, but it is far more dangerous to the woman concerned to continue with a pregnancy than to terminate it.
Care to elaborate that?
Why is it deemed morally acceptable to terminate the foetus’s life if it’s incapable of independent existence, but not if it’s capable of surviving outside the womb ? What’s the logic behind the different attitudes towards the two scenarios ?
Foetal respiration is initiated quite some time before birth, albeit through the placenta and the umbilical cord. And cardiac activity — ie. the heart beating — exists by the 8th week of pregnancy.
Ravi, I honestly didn’t realise that it was a controversial point that women die in childbirth. Even in the rich, western world childbirth is one of the most dangerous things women can do. It’s not likely to kill them, but of the things that do kill, it’s one of the most common.
Properly medically supervised abortion, on the other hand, is almost never fatal, or even dangerous to health. Part of this is because the vast majority of abortions are carried out during the first trimester, when of course most medically harmless miscarriages occur also. Very very few abortions are carried out late in term when they might be physically equivalent to giving birth. And it’s the giving birth that’s the really potentially dangerous bit.
All of this is one of the reasons that some people complain that the UK has abortion on demand - because the law says an abortion can be carried out when the risk to a woman’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it - and that is, in effect, always.
I could write a serious response to the Catholic objectors to abortion, especially in the very narrowly proscribed circumstances that AI is supporting, however sometimes one must fight idiocy with idiocy.
On the meaning of life:-
Each cell in my body is alive yet is incapable of sustaining itself outside of me. Similarly a Foetus is alive, however up until roughly the third trimester it is incapable of sustaining itself outside the human body. (though this is being pushed back by medical technology) It has the potential to do so, and to develop into a full fledged, self-sustaining individual but it is not yet one. However according to the Catholic Church it should be treated as an individual because it has the potential.
Each sperm cell and egg has the potential to become part of a zygote, which has the potential to develop into a foetus, which has the potential to become an individual, however sperm cells and eggs are not yet fully fledged individuals. However according to the Catholic Church every sperm is sacred (sorry Monty Python) because God’s purpose in inventing sex was to reproduce the human race. However it is quite obvious that since chastity is better than masturbation and non marital sex, that a sperm is only sacred once it has left the human body, since sperm are created and resorbed continually. (I’ll get on to the status of eggs later)
With the advent of cloning every cell in my body, bar red blood cells and a few others, has the potential to be transformed into a zygote, which has the potential to develop into a foetus which has the potential to develop into an individual. And a clone would be an individual - certainly more individual than identical twins due to the different womb and social environments the clone would experience compared to its genetic twin. It might even be possible in future to mimic the process of fertilisation and split the gentic material in a nrmal cell in half, thus creating artifical sperm and eggs which would produce genetically unique individuals.
If this is the case then using Catholic logic, which states it is “evil” to use contraception (not just “artificial” contraception - mutual masturbation and withdrawal [crap contraceptive methods admittedly] are banned too) because this violates “Gods design” for sex, then surely not attempting to turn every cell into a new human being is also evil?
If God has written the potential to turn every cell into a human being into that cell, while also giving us the brains to come up with such techniques as cloning, then surely His design must be for us to do so.
Similarly it should be possible to save all unfertilised eggs lost through menstruation, and all foetuses lost in miscarriages, and turn them into humans through modern or near future medical techniques.
I hereby submit to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (A.k.a. the Inquisition) that it should be the duty of the Catholic Church to invest its immense resources into researching human cloning and prescribe that every Catholic, male or female, should wear an impermeable “body condom” at all times(except obviously during those periods when they are engaged in sexual activity with their marriage partner)and that each body condom should be flash frozen at the end of each day to prevent the loss of any cells that could potentially be turned into a human life, until such time as those cells can be turned into zygotes, foetuses, babies etc. through the application of technology.
While there are obvious practical difficulties here (for example one would also have to collect all excreta and sift it for human cells, and come up with some sort of filter to collect those cells exhaled) this policy would have the added advantage of preserving Catholics against airborne diseases.
Now go forth and multiply.
I would rather say that they are of equal value. Which is why abortion - the killing of one of those lives - can only be justified IMO when the mother’s life is in obvious danger should the pregnancy continue
The Catholic church actually allows abortions in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. It has no probeleme with that.
I think that human life starts at conception, but I STILL think women should have a choice.
That said, when women are considering abortion, they should ponder it good and hard and consider any and all options that would allow them to keep the child.
You know, how many women regret having had children?
Has a women ever said to anyone commenting here; “oh I wish I hadn’t had my little Suzie cuz she’s such a bitch or my little Johnny cuz he’s such a pain”.
Abortion, too, is being assailed by progress in medical technology. The upper limit for abortions in some countries is now about the same as the bottom limit for survivivng preemies, creating, thus, a moral minefield
Strange, eh? You abort (kill) the one foetus and it’s a triumph of women rights, whereas if you kill a preemie of an equal age you’ll be behind bars for murder.
To CATH: If I willingly offer you a lift in my car , do I then not have the responsability to drop you off at your destination? Or should I just leave you somewhere (abortion) on the side of the road?
Are you going to tell me that women are so irresponsable that they have no controle over their bodies, controle that would prevent pregnancies?
And is the pro-choice argument merely the sigh of a lazy, irresponsable slut?
You know, before AI starts to trash The Church, they should think of how much work The Church has done to improve the lot of third world women. In many poverty-stricken areas of the globe the only hospitals, clinics and medical staff around are funded by Catholics.
This is especially true of AIDS treatments.
Lastly, The Church is in the business of providing and articulating moral ABSOLUTES, and because of that it often *sounds* fundamentalist.
It isn’t though. If we ( I’m Catholic) were always constrained to respect every moral absolute TO-THE-LETTER, then why is The church so big on confession?
It has confession because while promulgating moral absolutes it also provides for human weakness, by institutionalising and encouraging what I’d call an ‘escape hatch’.
Sometimes there’s nothing better than confessing everything and getting it off you chest.
Once again, abortion should remain legal, accessible and widely available, but it shouldn’t be encouraged or presented as the only option for pregnant women.
There’s a difference between having the facility to terminate the pregnancy as a result of a hypothetical danger to the woman’s health due to the future possibility of medical complications occuring during the course of the pregnancy, and actual medical complications which arise and unequivocally put the woman’s life in danger. One could say that the former example is intellectual sophistry and an abuse of the system.
Katherine, let me ask you something, just so we know where you stand on this particular issue: If a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy at any point up to and including the full term because the foetus is not the gender that the woman had desired, do you think she should have the right to do so ?
By the way, in case there is any confusion on this issue, I am not a Catholic or a Christian of any denomination, either by birth or by belief. For the record.
By the way, in case there is any confusion on this issue, I am not a Catholic or a Christian of any denomination, either by birth or by belief. For the record.
Wow! Guess being Christian nowadays is akin to having been a socialist back in 50s America.
Don’t be paranoid, Soso. I don’t think there’s anything wrong whatsoever with a person being Christian. I was clarifying my background so that nobody would mistakenly presume that my own stance is a result of Catholicism or Christianity in general — since the main topic of this discussion is related to the Catholic Church.
Ravi Naik - “If you think about it, there isn’t much difference in the role of a mother regardless of whether the baby is inside or outside her womb.”
Apart from the fact that once the baby’s outside the womb it’s not necessarily the mother’s role to be the primary carer. Not unless you’re completely stuck in those old gender roles….
Soso - “That said, when women are considering abortion, they should ponder it good and hard and consider any and all options that would allow them to keep the child”
I don’t think any woman goes into it lightly, without thinking through all the options first. That said, in the very early weeks I don’t see a problem, not when there’s the abortion pill now and there’s no surgery involved.
Soso - “If I willingly offer you a lift in my car , do I then not have the responsability to drop you off at your destination? Or should I just leave you somewhere (abortion) on the side of the road?”
I’d say that was entirely up to you. How about if the car breaks down on the way there (man runs out on the relationship, thus abrogating any responsibilty for his part in the conception)? Or if instead of offering me the lift you’d actually dragged me into the car against my will (rape)? Don’t I then have the right to jump out at the first set of lights? And would anyone blame me if I did?
Soso - “And is the pro-choice argument merely the sigh of a lazy, irresponsable slut?”
Nice. Of course, women get pregnant all by themselves don’t they? And all contraception is 100% reliable? (that’s if your religion permits you to use any of course).
Soso - “This is especially true of AIDS treatments”
If the Catholic Church wasn’t so opposed to the use of condoms, maybe they wouldn’t be kept so busy in the developing world clearing up the mess they helped to create.
“You know, before AI starts to trash The Church, they should think of how much work The Church has done to improve the lot of third world women. In many poverty-stricken areas of the globe the only hospitals, clinics and medical staff around are funded by Catholics”
Yes, those overlarge families that tend to gobble away gains in economic growth, lead to deforestation, over grazing, soil loss, urban slums and absolute poverty are a real boon…….
Those clinics would be better staffed by non religious zealots.
The Catholic Church has managed to set back the fight against HIV in the developing world by decades.
I defy anyone to walk through the slums of Manilla, as an example, and think, Catholism has been such a great thing for that city………..
Soso,
With all this talk of lazy, irresponsible sluts and the wonder of giving birth etc., you seem to have missed the point of AI’s stance.
‘…in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother’s life or health.’
A woman in Darfur who has been impregnated by rape and cast out by her family - assuming they weren’t butchered - is not really in a position to ponder meaningful alternatives. And carrying the foetus to term is almost certainly going to be seriously life threatening.
AI is not, as far as I know, ‘trashing’ the church. It has made a considered and humane decision which the church is attempting to undermine/reverse on the basis of its own teachings and doctrines - doctrines which are unlikely to be shared by most of the people actually involved.
Mission creep: Amnesty and abortion…
Technorati Tags: amnesty international Amnesty International last week announced that it had abandoned its policy of neutrality on the issue of abortion in favour of supporting it “in some circumstances”, including pregnancies resulting from rape or …
Soso do you ever wonder what you say before you speak it? I just wonder because my mouth is hanging on the floor after looking at your comments all over PP. Be proud to be american eh?? You are a joke to the states, my Yankee friends don’t need a joker like you working on their image. Fucking loser. Sorry Sunny but this guy deserves a kick up the throat.
“Ravi Naik - “If you think about it, there isn’t much difference in the role of a mother regardless of whether the baby is inside or outside her womb.”
Apart from the fact that once the baby’s outside the womb it’s not necessarily the mother’s role to be the primary carer. Not unless you’re completely stuck in those old gender roles….”
She is indeed the primary carer, as intended by nature, where her body is already transformed to give milk after birth, to continue to nurture the baby. The role is therefore maintained. And one can see these “old gender roles” in other mammals too.
Jai raises a very good point about India, and also China, where abortions (although infanticide is more prevalent) are commited to the female population for economic reasons.
I also wish to know for those that believe in abortions “plain and simple”, if they agree with this practice.
Its a sad day when Sunny Hundal writes such an ill-judged peice. Quite a few people - Sunny is not alone in this - aren’t aware of just how badly Amnesty has behaved over this issue.
Aside from the fact that Amnesty is engaging in some pretty nasty press tactics against Catholics and Pro-Lifers of other faiths who have objected to this policy. Aside from the fact that Amnesty really didn’t need to push this policy through. Aside from the contemptuous attitude Amnesty has taken to people like Bishop Evans who have been the backbone of the movement for decades.
Aside from all that. There are some serious questions about the blatantly partisan, worryingly undemocratic nature of the whole “consultation” process.
Just consider the results of Amnesty UK’s consultation:
Question 1 Do you agree that Amnesty International should develop policy to enable
research and action to achieve the following:
- decriminalisation of abortion
- access to quality services for the management of complications arising
from abortions
- access to abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest, and risk to a
woman’s life
Yes: 45.4% No: 45.7% Undecided: 8.0% No answer: 0.8%
Question 2 Are there any further circumstances under which AI should develop policy on abortion? eg risk to mother’s health, severe foetal development, sex-selective abortions, unwanted pregnancy in forced or early marriages etc
Yes: 31.1% No: 42.6% Undecided: 8.0% No answer: 18.4%
Question 3 Should Amnesty International take the view that a woman’s right to physical
and mental integrity (her safety and health) includes her right to terminate her pregnancy within reasonable limitations, if she chooses to do so? So abortion should be legal, safe and accessible for all women?
Yes: 35.3% No: 52.8% Undecided: 9.6% No answer: 2.3%
In other words, the respondents did NOT support a change in policy. But they were ignored.
Yes, Amnesty’s claim that this policy was decided upon only after two years of consultation with their membership is a farce. As Red Maria says, the UK respondents didn’t support the change. The general membership in the US was never consulted. The policy was discussed at regional meetings in the US late last year, but: a) most members don’t attend those meetings; and b) pro-life Amnesty members who tried to present the case for continued neutrality on abortion were told that the new policy was not being debated, and that the discussion would only be about how best to implement it. Callers to Amnesty’s US national office in May 2006 were even told that Amnesty wasn’t considering a change in policy on abortion at all, and that that was just a rumor! Members in the Australia chapter are also apparently very upset, based on the press I’ve been seeing from there.
For an organization founded on the principle of freedom of conscience, Amnesty has been remarkably contemptuous of the consciences of a large number of its members.
Oh, and I’m not a Catholic, I’m an atheist. Despite what Amnesty and the lazy press would have you believe, Catholics are not the only ones opposed to the new policy.
Hopefully I will never be in this situation but is seems a bit cruel to create a second victim out of an already terrible crime, i.e. rape, incest, etc. The mother has been victimized and now Amnesty International is giving its support for further victimization of an unborn child.
Just because that child is the product of violence and non-consensual sex doesnt mean its life is any less valuable. The women shouldnt be forced to raise the children, because it wasnt their decision to make. She should give it to state custody.
In the US we have Safe Haven laws that protect women from prosecution if they safely abandon their babies at hospitals, fire departments, police departments etc, if they dont want to raise the children. In the developing world, this isnt an option but in the developed world where women continue to be the victims of rape and incest, they should be encouraged to just give the baby up instead of aborting it.
A more accurate interpretation of that analogy would be desiring the right to jump out of the car and then set fire to it, thereby killing the baby strapped into the back seat.
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate. Taking this back to the main point, why draw the line at terminating the child only during the course of the pregnancy ? If there are any changes in circumstances after birth — for example, if “the man runs out on the relationship” as per the quote above, or if the woman later changes her mind (for whatever reason) and does not desire to support a child, should she have the right to kill him/her at any point until the time he/she is capable of physically & financially surviving independently of the mother (age: 16/18/21 ?) ? If not, why not ?
All very Roman, incidentally.
I do find the debate on abortion a difficult one. On one hand women should have the right to practice choice. On the other hand I believe in the sanctity of the unborn child. I think the question of choice again must be held alongside responsibility. Should the reason behind an individual abortion be held up to scrutiny or should choice be practiced regardless of the reasons. Therefore should women in India who abort their female foetuses continue to have this right? The legalisation of abortion was hoped to give women the choice but how often do women exercise this choice with adult responsibility. Why is it that this country has some of the highest abortion statistics in Europe, and please don’t go on about sex education and how rubbish it is. I had basic sex education at school..it was simple, you sleep with someone and don’t use a condom or contraception, you may get pregnant. The vast majority of abortions in this country are not carried out because the woman has been raped or the child is at risk, but because of an “accident”…
The Catholic view is very entrenched on account of the belief that the foetus is human from conception. Islamic and Jewish teaching hold that life comesinto being on the 120th. and 40th day respectively and so permit it under some circumstances before those days.
Below is a link to an article outlining the positions of the world’s major religions on the issue of abortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion#Roman_Catholicism
Sunny:
“Because provision of abortion facilities is a human rights issue.”
That’s your opinion, one not shared by some (many? few? whatever) who do support the original aims of AI, as I did and do.
I’m with Rumbold here. AI should concentrate on its original mission, prisoners of conscience and fair trials. The other parts of the human rights package can be argued over separately, by other organisations.
Jai - “Taking this back to the main point, why draw the line at terminating the child only during the course of the pregnancy ?”
Because during the course of the pregnancy it’s not a child.
Bikhair, don’t you think it unjust that a woman who has been raped and therefore traumatised should then have to carry the child of the man who did this to her?
Cath, so the day before a child is born, it is not technically a child?
Cath,
Define “child” please, in your own words.
Sofia - No, technically it’s a foetus until it’s born.
Jai - A child is a person under 16. A foetus is not a person.
But let’s be honest here, I don’t think there are many that would argue for abortion right up to the 39th week, so all this talk of late term abortion just obscures the argument. Abortion is overwhelmingly carried out before the 24th week of pregnancy, before the neural pathways have connected etc. Late abortion is usually only performed when the woman’s life is at significant risk, or the foetus is so severely compromised that it would be unlikely to survive beyond birth.
Cath,
You don’t think it’s a person until the moment it’s born ?
Why not ? I’m not referring to legal nomenclature; I’d interested in knowing your personal reasons for not regarding it as a human being until it’s born.
Jai. Because a foetus isn’t alive; up until it’s born it has merely the potential for life.
Sorry, but I have to bow out of the debate for today. I’ll check back tomorrow.
I’ll leave it as I don’t agree with a child being a foetus until it is actually born…I think sometimes it is just better to agree to disagree
“Jai. Because a foetus isn’t alive; up until it’s born it has merely the potential for life.
I think you are taking an extreme view which even those who are pro-choice would disagree.
I have not had a chance to read all comments made, unfortunately, but I’d like to come back into the debate, and make a few replies to some comments made:
#30 The Common Humanist
Jay,
How about addressing my point, that the CC blind adherence to its evil opposition to artificial contraception actually causes abortions rather then prevents them?
———————————————–
Could you explain how you believe this? I’ll ignore the evil opposition point, I would just like to know how the Catholic Church’s teaching on artificial contraception actually *causes* abortions?
#37 ChrisC
No.
It’s not just her body, is it?
Otherwise we would not (perhaps you don’t) put a time limit on abortion.
————————————————-
There isn’t a time limit on abortion. A woman can have her child removed from the womb at any point up to term, for any reason.
#44 Katherine
And you still haven’t been able to touch on the point that making abortion illegal doesn’t stop them happening.
—————————————————
I wouldn’t be naïve enough to believe it would stop people seeking abortion if it were illegal, but then that’s the case with many things. Many people commit acts that are illegal. However, making abortion illegal would send the message that it is wrong, that just because the person has yet to be born doesn’t mean they have no rights as a human being. Society should condemn such evil acts, rather than be complicit in them.
#48 Ravi Naik
Fortunately, long are the days when the Catholic Church actually had a final say on private matters. As a Catholic, I find their opposition to condoms totally unacceptable and I cannot understand their position under any light. However, their opposition to abortion is understandable, even if I find it unfair to victims of rape and incest.
—————————————————-
I don’t wish to cast doubt on your faith, but the comments you make are not in line with Church teaching. The Church teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. Of course you are free to disagree, but you cannot just choose to ignore the teaching of the Church. Catholicism isn’t something you can pick and choose at. Selecting the teachings you like, ignoring the ones you do not is not Catholicism. If you act contrary to Church teaching then you are not living the Catholic faith.
I’m curious why opposition to abortion for victims of rape and incest is unfair to the victims of those awful crimes? It seems as if people have the mentality that abortion is a cure all for the suffering the victim has endured. As if, by removing the person inside, this will somehow ‘make things better.’
Evidence from women who have had abortions would suggest this is not the case. Why make two victims from the one crime?
Be proud to be american eh?? You are a joke to the states, my Yankee friends don’t need a joker like you working on their image. Fucking loser. Sorry Sunny but this guy deserves a kick up the throat.
I’m Canadian, Sahil.
I’m also gay…and completely lacking in post-colonialist guilt.
So you kick-me-up-the-throat, sweetie, and I’ll fuck-you-up-the-ass…..without a condom.
Mind you tongue, twerp, and I’ll mind mine.
If the Catholic Church wasn’t so opposed to the use of condoms, maybe they wouldn’t be kept so busy in the developing world clearing up the mess they helped to create.
You just knew this was comming….
Yeah, the condom two-step.
Gays have nothing against the use of condoms, Cath. In fact, they ridicule The Church’s stance on this all the time. They are even UN *studies* (Saudi financed, some say) purporting to demonstrate how circumcision reduces AIDS infections. Condoms don’t help much and circumcision is for the birds.
Hence, HIV infection rates are still climbing among gays, condoms notwithstanding and whether they be cut/uncut.
Why, exactly?
Because ( cover yer ears…here comes the truth!) SOME gay men are lazy, irresponsable sluts who cannot display even a minimum of sexual discipline.
Aids isn’t caused by a lack of condoms, Cath; it is the result of irresponable human sexual behavior.
The more people engage in promiscuous behavior, the great their chances of becomming infected…PERIOD.
As someone who has had several close friends die of this disease, I cannot understand why people refuse to grasp such simple, basic logic.
And this whole issue on abortion comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils. The Catholic Church has, grosso modo, down a MORE for women than AI. AI does a great deal of grandstanding, but very little concrete work, and its hierarchy of victims is drawn up, not based on objective standards, but merely in relation to PERCIEVED instances of Western colonialism.
It’s agenda is more poltical than humanitarian.
AI is populated by individuals who operate according to certain soft prejudices; they see themselves as the humanistic vanguard of anti-colonialism, as the moral champions of the Third World. Many of its members, thus, have a muddled, skewed idea of the difference between right and wrong.
On this point,”RED MARIA’S” comments are worth noting. This abortion intiative is not being drawn up to benefit third-world women; it’s an >i>egotisticalinitiative rammed through by zealous, guilt-ridden White ideologues and is laregely designed to marginalise and demonise western-based faith groups and Christians in particular….the very groups that actually DO something to help
Same old, same old White moral preening performed on the backs of bewildered and defenseless Third World people.
‘…in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother’s life or health.’ DON.
I stated TWICE in my first posting that abortion should remain legal and available.
A woman in Darfur who has been impregnated by rape and cast out by her family - assuming they weren’t butchered - is not really in a position to ponder meaningful alternatives. And carrying the foetus to term is almost certainly going to be seriously life threatening.
Moot point, there are no abortion clinics in Darfur…although I’m sure the Arabs in Khartoum wished there were……
Moot point, there are no abortion clinics in Darfur…although I’m sure the Arabs in Khartoum wished there were
As is the case with anti-choice fanatics in the United States… oh whoops, there goes my anti-Americanism streak again!
Soso, when you start making some sense in these rambling and immature posts then you’ll be worth engaging with.
Sunny,
Could you comment on the pertinent remarks made by myself and Jen R?
Soso, when you start making some sense in these rambling and immature posts then you’ll be worth engaging with.
Sunny, many AI, UN and NGO intiatives are all about the quirks and kinks operating in the minds of white, western, bourgeois do-gooders who, in my opinion, are little more than the spiritual heirs to those tiresome, 19th century, Protestant missionaries.
The similarities are uncanny, and the results of their condescending and misguided initiatives JUST as devastating for the Third World.
I propose Bobbie Mugabe, once the poster boy of the UN/AI crowd, as exhibit “A”.
Setting Mugabe up in business wasn’t about helping Africans; the guy was a merely bromide, a balm meant to do nothing more than to soothe the moral pangs of selfish, guilt-ridden Whites.
You are from India. How much good has AI and similar organisations done for India in comparison to the countless Christian-based ( and others) charities that operate all over the country?
It’s one thing to grandstand in front of the cameras, and to remain squeaky clean and moral; it’s quite another to get down on your knees and change an AIDS patient’s diapers.
And that sounds rambling and immature to you?
Jay
Shall I walk you through it?
Sex without contraception causes preganancy approximatley 5-8% of the time.
Many of these pregnancies are to young women, girls really in terms of mental maturity. An abortion is often the result.
In predominantly catholic countries/regions etc the level of sex education awareness can be terribly low (another count again the CC) and young people, being only human, are bound to have sex at some point.
Catholic opposition to contraception ruins lives, causes abortions, assists the spread of HIV and other STDs and generally has a profoundly negative impact on the societies affected.
So why again is contraception evil????
Soso,
This is off-topic, but I just wanted to say that I’m very sorry to hear that; it must have been a very difficult experience for you. I do know what it is like to go through the trauma of close friends passing away before their time (especially at a tragically young age, when they should have had their whole lives in front of them to look forward to), so you do have my heartfelt sympathy.
Cath,
Could you please explain your sources of information for this statement, especially from a medical viewpoint ?
I would have to disagree, although my own stance is based on the fact that I have an undergraduate degree which is identical to pre-clinical Medicine (from a redbrick college affiliated with one of the UK’s top teaching hospitals) and which extensively covered foetal development in its syllabus, along with the fact that my father is a senior hospital consultant whose specialisms include neonatal paediatrics and obstetrics and who would therefore also forcefully disagree with your comment from a professional medical point of view.
TCH,
‘So why again is contraception evil????’
What? Do I have to walk you through it? OK, non-procreative sex is bad because it annoys the pope and probably makes Baby Jesus cry.
However, God has given us the gifts of multiple unwanted pregnancies, STD’s, HIV and cervical cancer to discourage weak fleshy vessels from abusing their reproductive bits for mere recreation.
So anything that stands in the way of God’s benevolent plan is intrinsically evil. The church is not without compassion for the victims of rape, incest or complications that will result in a child who’s life will most likely consist of a few weeks or months of inchoate agony; but they are acceptable collateral damage.
Obvious, when you think about it.
Common Humanist,
Allow ME to walk YOU through it, with reference to FACTS, not unpleasant prejudices.
Contraception is not 100% foolproof at preventing pregnancy even among ADULTS.
The failure rate for the combined pill is as low as it gets at 1-2%. In other words, for every one hundred women using it, you would expect one or two to conceive. NB this assumes “perfect” use of the product.
The Pro-choice lobby frequently assures us that cheap, widespread availability of birth control drugs and devices will reduce “unwanted” conception, abortion and live birth rates. Such assertions tend not to be accompanied by any supporting evidence, which isn’t surprising since empirical evidence does not support such a conclusion.
Take the case of the UK where since 1974, birth control drugs and devices have been available for free on the NHS and widely promoted.
If pro-choice claims are accurate, we would expect a decrease in abortion rates since that date.
Did that happen?
NO.
Abortion rates in the UK continued to climb after 1974.
Similarly, we are assured that sex “education” will reduce “unwanted” conception, abortion and live birth rates.
If that were the case, we would expect the government’s teenage pregnancy strategy - which was formulated exclusively by the pro-choice lobby rather than independent experts and which relies heavily on sex “education” and making birth control drugs and devices easily and freely available to teenagers - to be a resounding success. We would expect it to be accompanied by a decrease in abortion rates among 16-24 year olds.
Has that happened?
NO.
In fact, the reverse is the case.
19 year olds are now the most likely to have abortions of any age group despite enormous government spending on sex “education” and birth control provision. Previously, the highest rate was among 20-24 year olds. According to the latest available figures, the number of under 16s and under 18s having abortions *increased*.
The notion that sex “education” and birth control provision will reduce “unwanted” conceptions, abortions and live births is NOT supported by the evidence.
“Catholic opposition to contraception ruins lives, causes abortions, assists the spread of HIV and other STDs and generally has a profoundly negative impact on the societies affected.”
Let me balance your argument. The Catholic Church is opposed to pre-marital sex, hence it is ludicrous to say, in my view, that people who have sex outside marriage are not using condoms because it is a sin.
Obviously, much of not using condoms (which leads to STDs, HIV, pregancies, and so on) is the result of lack of sexual education. But whose fault is it? The Church? TV? No, it is the parent’s responsability.
But let’s just say that England - a largely secular non-Catholic country - has the largest amount of teenage pregancies, and one of the highest incidence of STDs in Europe. Clearly, there is a lot more that explains these occurrences than to blame everything on the Catholic Church.
Ravi,
Its very difficult to balance an argument grounded in such unreason. Anti-Catholicism is just another irrational prejudice. Anti-Catholics have no regard for verifiable facts, logic or hard evidence. They can’t possibly back up their preposterous claims about there being a causal link or even, to set the standard of proof lower, a correlation between Roman Catholicism and say, unplanned conception rates. Not that they even ever try to cobble together so much as a coherent argument studded with a few footnotes. But that’s not the point. Reason is antithetical to prejudice. We cannot and should not expect the prejudiced to follow the rules of robust, evidence-based debates. The two just don’t mix.
‘The Catholic Church is opposed to pre-marital sex, hence it is ludicrous to say, in my view, that people who have sex outside marriage are not using condoms because it is a sin.’
I wouldn’t say ludicrous, Ravi, because I don’t think anyone has proposed that direct a link. In other words, the truck driver who has unprotected sex with a prostitute before returning home to have unprotected sex with his wife (whether she wants it or not) is not forgoing protection because he has taken on board the Vatican’s latest ruling. A more significant factor is that two of the most influential actors in overseas aid - the Vatican and US evangelicals - have set their faces against any project which promulgates the normalisation of condom use. And that is serious clout.
Let’s keep this in the context wherein AI is working, which is not the UK. In that context, parental responsibility assumes an element of parental control and a reasonable degree of parental awareness of the facts. I doubt that many parents are in that position.
‘…the result of lack of sexual education. But whose fault is it? The Church?’ In many cases, yes.
PS. Mechai Viravaidya for UN secretary General.
This isn’t an argument.
Besides all that id be happy for anyone to terminate any parasitic lifeform they don’t want.
This is off-topic, but I just wanted to say that I’m very sorry to hear that; it must have been a very difficult experience for you. I do know what it is like to go through the trauma of close friends passing away before their time (especially at a tragically young age, when they should have had their whole lives in front of them to look forward to), so you do have my heartfelt sympathy.
Thank-you Jai.
They were surrouonded by lots of support and love in their final days, and accepted their deaths with a dignity that few of us can muster. The experience was so traumatic and ao transformative that my life is in two compartments: one labelled ‘before AIDS’ and the other ‘after AIDS’.
I want young people like you ( and others here) to learn from that.
You know, sex sells and nothing sells like sex. The promiscuity we see nowadays is encouraged and reinforced at every turn in order to sell the public endless quantites of useless products, be it sports- cars, beer or perfums, that we neither need nor want.
So whether one is straight, gay or lesbian, expropriate your sexuality, take it back, make it healthy, commit to your partners with honesty and sincerity and you’ll not only remain alive, you’ll have also delivered a kick in the teeth to the cynical marketing strategies of greedy corporations and multinationals.
Cuz that’s all *sexual liberation* was ever about.
I’m afraid Don doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The most influential actors in overseas aid are national governments and the agencies of supranational bodies such as the EU and UN, which are strongly linked to birth-control lobby groups. If you want to look at serious clout in international aid you might want to look at, say, the UK’s DFID which spends more on birth-control (the second largest slice of its budget) than it does on clean water. DFID funding goes to birth-control, abortion agencies such as Marie Stopes and IPPF.
Much is made of the supposed influence of Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians on aid and AIDS policy in the US and Uganda, where they have supported the successful abstinence-driven campaign against HIV AIDS - the only country to have significantly reduced HIV rates. But this pales into insignifance when compared with the mammoth amounts funnelled to the pro-abortion agencies which advance condom-driven campaigns against HIV AIDS.
As with the UK’s hopelessly unsuccessful teenage pregnancy campaign, results don’t determine the annual bonanza of grants settled on condom campaigns, which can merrily suck up endless amounts of money without seeing any decrease in HIV AIDS infection rates.
To date the only country to have successfully reduced HIV AIDS is Uganda, which uses an abstinence-driven policy.
Sofia,
Now that depends on the woman doesnt it? I mean it is the child of the man who raped her but it is also half of her. For the sake of her better half, she should keep it. I guess the crime shouldnt define what the child is.
The idea that women want abortions because they are promiscuous is as offensive as it is misinformed. Women are not using abortion as birth control, you stupid, stupid men (and Bikhair). And forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will is nothing less than slavery whether she has been raped or not - but how much more disgraceful to make a woman carry the seed of her rapist around with her for nine months and risk her life giving birth to it (and yes, women can and do die giving birth even in this supposedly advanced and enlightened first-world country of ours). Being pregnant and giving birth are difficult enough when you want the baby. God only knows what it’s like when you don’t.
When medical technology has advanced to the point where a foetus can be transplanted onto a man to gestate then I might pay some attention to what men have to say. But I suspect that once those men who are opposed to abortion have to do some of the work involved in pregnancy and giving birth themselves they’ll be far, far more receptive to the idea of abortion. Oh yes.
Alas, the evidence increasingly indicates that abortion IS being used as birth control, Katy, you stupid, stupid woman.
The rest of your comment made use of absurd extreme rhetoric and was frankly too irrational to take seriously.
I’m sorry it was so well written, Red Maria. Point me to the evidence that women are using abortion as birth c